by the authors own example he makes an argument FOR faster frame rates. as he notes, his snowflake will make discreet jumps in space when he is moving fast relative to it.
think about a rocket in Quake 3. if it flies laterally across your field of vision, it will be travelling so fast that it will make discreet jumps. if you have motion blur (or a high enough frame rate) it will look more natural. ie. you will see a streak instead of the discreet images.
this isn't critical for gameplay but does make a small improvement in the realism of the rendering.
Ok, sounds like your 2nd camp is Agnosticism which is not the same as Atheism.
But my original question is still unanswered. If Atheism is the belief in no god then "a god of reason" or "a god that is reason" is still a "god" and seems to violate the principles of Atheism. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, i still find it an interesting and paradoxical statement.
Obviously he meant that the current government has those qualities and he would like to change that and reduce the number of things that politics has an influence on. But i guess you would rather ignore the obvious just to stir up controversy rather than contribute something useful to the discussion.
I disagree with most of Browne's opinions but i at least attempt to interpret him in an objective manner.
i used to think like you but you're eventually going to reach the conclusion that being different isn't all that important and is a somewhat ambiguous goal.
you have to accept that by telling people they should be different, you are in fact pushing your own belief onto them. maybe they don't want to be different. can't they choose to be the same?
if you disagree with someone then by all means make your point but agreeing with someone or even with a whole group is not necessarily a bad thing.
in fact i'll go so far as to say that being different is WAY over emphasized in american culture. i see a kid with 5 piercings in his face and i think #1 that looks horrible and #2 why does this kid have to go to this extreme just to prove that he's unique or different? the most interesting thing about any person is not how they look but how they think. if someone wants to vote for Bush, i'll tell them why i think they shouldn't but i'm certainly not going to condemn them for their reasoning even if i find it to be faulty. its their choice.
they have no options because of contractual obligations with Motorola. before the G4, Apple had 2 vendors for CPUs. but i, as you, would also like to see support for more hardware.
It WILL be great when Apple can start buying CPUs from IBM again.
Moto has dropped the ball in a big, big way by failing to raise the G4 and G3 clock rates significantly over the last year. Apple is getting screwed and they have no options for an alternate vendor at this point. I can certainly understand Jobs frustration but you would think the guy would have grown up by now. Its really sad seeing a so called buisness man acting in such a childish manner.
I don't how the politicians or oil companies managed to cover this up but the IFR reactor prodcues only a very, very small amount of low level radioactive waste. Its incapable of a meltdown and it can use our current stock piles of nuclear 'waste' and burn it as fuel. What more could you want?
Search for Integral Fast Reactor. I think the berkeley.edu site has some good info.
I don't want to hear any crap from them about increasing oil supplies. I want to hear about clean energy. And i don't want to hear any crap about research either. We already have clean energy solutions (IFR) why aren't we implementing them? Why do we keep polluting our air when clean energy technology is already developed and waiting?
First of all your assumptions about drug users, their enviroments and families are way off base and i'm not even going to bother expanding on that.
Secondly, according to your argument practically everything we do should be illegal.
Driving should be illegal (someone else already pointed this out). You can easily kill someone even if you're not on drugs. It happens EVERY DAY.
Burning gasoline and coal should be illegal. You're giving people respiratory problems.
Owning a kitchen knife should be illegal. You could cut yourself or someone else. Happens all the time.
You can't protect everyone from everything and you shouldn't even try. I could be incinerated by a meteor at any moment but that doesn't mean i should start building a personal meteor defense shield. There is an acceptable level of risk that must be acknowledged. The war on drugs is doing more harm than good.
"smokers of both marijuana and tobacco had lower rates of cancer than smokers of merely tobacco."
That's possible but the interesting question involves cancer rates of MJ smokers versus non-smokers. (non-smokers meaning no tobacco, MJ, crack etc.)
I'll reiterate that coughing means something is going wrong. Your body is trying to correct a problem. Healthy people don't cough regularly. But i feel i may be preaching to the converted here.
Interesting info about holding the smoke in. It seems to be a common method of smoking MJ.
Nader had a ticket to observe the debates and was denied access. Did the other candidates have tickets? Were they denied access? Not as far as i know. This is the issue the original post was addressing. It had nothing to do with other candidates.
*tries to think of anyone, in the history of the world, that has gone to the ER for being stoned*
While i can't state any statistics on MJ related lung cancers or other health hazards, i think it is unobjective to exclude such problems based on the following reasoning.
Common sense will tell you that inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there is not a good thing. Your body will give you the same message when you start coughing. Smokers of any substance will have a diminished lung capacity.
But i agree that leagalization will NOT increase the number of drug users or related health problems. It will simply decriminalize them.
"If washing removes pesticides..., I would think it would remove E.coli"
it does but pesticides don't grow, reproduce and multiply after the foods are washed. even if you wipe out 99% of the micro-organisms, the 1% left can still continue to multiply and in less than 7 generations they will be back to 100% and still growing.
There must be buildings full of psychologists reading this message board and others. (if there aren't there should be) They're taking notes and getting ready to embark on a whole new era of psychoanalyisis.
Someone please point me to the studies if you know of them. They should make fascinating reading.
Its interesting that you would choose to advocate free speech while in the same breath trying to silence your opponent. "deal with it, or get over it, just stop whining about it." Even more interesting was the quite audible "whine" of your own argument.
I think you didn't read this part of the article:
"As long as flamers flame, the Net remains freer than anywhere else."
Or prehaps your interpretation of the article was simply a bit lacking in objectivity?
Mere vitriol causes no harm other than hurt feelings.
I would argue that this statement alone justifies the use of the term "verbal violence". I'm not sure i've ever seen a case where treating someone poorly over a disagreement was justified.
>the only people who should have computers are programmers and sometimes scientists
and what point would there be to only programmers having computers? to write programs for other programmers perhaps?
if you don't care about the article then don't bother replying just to tell us that we shouldn't care either. if its all the same to you, i'll decide for myself what i do and do not care about. thank you very much. please drive through.
Slashdot Mirror
he didn't say stop all pollution, he said tax it to discourage it.
by the authors own example he makes an argument FOR faster frame rates. as he notes, his snowflake will make discreet jumps in space when he is moving fast relative to it.
think about a rocket in Quake 3. if it flies laterally across your field of vision, it will be travelling so fast that it will make discreet jumps. if you have motion blur (or a high enough frame rate) it will look more natural. ie. you will see a streak instead of the discreet images.
this isn't critical for gameplay but does make a small improvement in the realism of the rendering.
Ok, sounds like your 2nd camp is Agnosticism which is not the same as Atheism.
But my original question is still unanswered. If Atheism is the belief in no god then "a god of reason" or "a god that is reason" is still a "god" and seems to violate the principles of Atheism. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, i still find it an interesting and paradoxical statement.
wouldn't a God of reason still be a God? and isn't atheism the disbelief in *any* God?
excuse my ignorance i'm not an atheist and no little of its philosophy beyond the obvious.
Obviously he meant that the current government has those qualities and he would like to change that and reduce the number of things that politics has an influence on. But i guess you would rather ignore the obvious just to stir up controversy rather than contribute something useful to the discussion.
I disagree with most of Browne's opinions but i at least attempt to interpret him in an objective manner.
i used to think like you but you're eventually going to reach the conclusion that being different isn't all that important and is a somewhat ambiguous goal.
you have to accept that by telling people they should be different, you are in fact pushing your own belief onto them. maybe they don't want to be different. can't they choose to be the same?
if you disagree with someone then by all means make your point but agreeing with someone or even with a whole group is not necessarily a bad thing.
in fact i'll go so far as to say that being different is WAY over emphasized in american culture. i see a kid with 5 piercings in his face and i think #1 that looks horrible and #2 why does this kid have to go to this extreme just to prove that he's unique or different? the most interesting thing about any person is not how they look but how they think. if someone wants to vote for Bush, i'll tell them why i think they shouldn't but i'm certainly not going to condemn them for their reasoning even if i find it to be faulty. its their choice.
they have no options because of contractual obligations with Motorola. before the G4, Apple had 2 vendors for CPUs. but i, as you, would also like to see support for more hardware.
It WILL be great when Apple can start buying CPUs from IBM again. Moto has dropped the ball in a big, big way by failing to raise the G4 and G3 clock rates significantly over the last year. Apple is getting screwed and they have no options for an alternate vendor at this point. I can certainly understand Jobs frustration but you would think the guy would have grown up by now. Its really sad seeing a so called buisness man acting in such a childish manner.
Why shouldn't i be able to reverse engineer someone else's product, figure out how it works and then build a better one?
Maybe our cars should all come with wheel covers to prevent us from finding out what makes them roll so easily.
Nuclear energy IS clean energy.
I don't how the politicians or oil companies managed to cover this up but the IFR reactor prodcues only a very, very small amount of low level radioactive waste. Its incapable of a meltdown and it can use our current stock piles of nuclear 'waste' and burn it as fuel. What more could you want?
Search for Integral Fast Reactor. I think the berkeley.edu site has some good info.
I don't want to hear any crap from them about increasing oil supplies. I want to hear about clean energy. And i don't want to hear any crap about research either. We already have clean energy solutions (IFR) why aren't we implementing them? Why do we keep polluting our air when clean energy technology is already developed and waiting?
Ummm.... growth of the National Debt has already stopped. Its being paid down. Thats why the National Debt clock was taken down.
First of all your assumptions about drug users, their enviroments and families are way off base and i'm not even going to bother expanding on that.
Secondly, according to your argument practically everything we do should be illegal.
Driving should be illegal (someone else already pointed this out). You can easily kill someone even if you're not on drugs. It happens EVERY DAY.
Burning gasoline and coal should be illegal. You're giving people respiratory problems.
Owning a kitchen knife should be illegal. You could cut yourself or someone else. Happens all the time.
You can't protect everyone from everything and you shouldn't even try. I could be incinerated by a meteor at any moment but that doesn't mean i should start building a personal meteor defense shield. There is an acceptable level of risk that must be acknowledged. The war on drugs is doing more harm than good.
"smokers of both marijuana and tobacco had lower rates of cancer than smokers of merely tobacco."
That's possible but the interesting question involves cancer rates of MJ smokers versus non-smokers. (non-smokers meaning no tobacco, MJ, crack etc.)
I'll reiterate that coughing means something is going wrong. Your body is trying to correct a problem. Healthy people don't cough regularly. But i feel i may be preaching to the converted here.
Interesting info about holding the smoke in. It seems to be a common method of smoking MJ.
Nader had a ticket to observe the debates and was denied access. Did the other candidates have tickets? Were they denied access? Not as far as i know. This is the issue the original post was addressing. It had nothing to do with other candidates.
*tries to think of anyone, in the history of the world, that has gone to the ER for being stoned*
While i can't state any statistics on MJ related lung cancers or other health hazards, i think it is unobjective to exclude such problems based on the following reasoning.
Common sense will tell you that inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there is not a good thing. Your body will give you the same message when you start coughing. Smokers of any substance will have a diminished lung capacity.
But i agree that leagalization will NOT increase the number of drug users or related health problems. It will simply decriminalize them.
You've broken it down well. Only a blanket health care system makes sense in this context.
Providing health care only to people who are healthy or wealthy is not a very moral system.
"broken in under 1 month despite being bycotted by most of the capable programmers"
The boycott was not irrelevant as they claim.
Many of the best minds did not work on this problem so the RIAA still does not know the extent of the codebreaking skills that they are facing.
"If washing removes pesticides ..., I would think it would remove E.coli"
it does but pesticides don't grow, reproduce and multiply after the foods are washed. even if you wipe out 99% of the micro-organisms, the 1% left can still continue to multiply and in less than 7 generations they will be back to 100% and still growing.
That system won't work. Professional traders would never have to pay any taxes.
There must be buildings full of psychologists reading this message board and others. (if there aren't there should be) They're taking notes and getting ready to embark on a whole new era of psychoanalyisis.
Someone please point me to the studies if you know of them. They should make fascinating reading.
Its interesting that you would choose to advocate free speech while in the same breath trying to silence your opponent. "deal with it, or get over it, just stop whining about it." Even more interesting was the quite audible "whine" of your own argument.
I think you didn't read this part of the article:
"As long as flamers flame, the Net remains freer than anywhere else."
Or prehaps your interpretation of the article was simply a bit lacking in objectivity?
Mere vitriol causes no harm other than hurt feelings.
I would argue that this statement alone justifies the use of the term "verbal violence". I'm not sure i've ever seen a case where treating someone poorly over a disagreement was justified.
>the only people who should have computers are programmers and sometimes scientists
and what point would there be to only programmers having computers? to write programs for other programmers perhaps?
if you don't care about the article then don't bother replying just to tell us that we shouldn't care either. if its all the same to you, i'll decide for myself what i do and do not care about. thank you very much. please drive through.
http://www.cafepress.com/parsec/
buy a Parsec t-shirt, mug or mouse pad. $2 goes to the project for each item you buy.